Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-09-19 - City Commission Special Meeting MinutesMAIL REPLY TO: P.O. BOX 25010 TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33320 5811 NORTHWEs"I' 88TH AVENUE TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321 TELEPHONE (305) 722-5900 September 13, 1984 NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING CITY COUNCIL TAMARAC, FLORIDA There will be a Special Meeting of the City Council. on Wednesday, September 19, 1984, at 10:00 A.M. in the Council Chambers (rear) of City Hall, 5811 Northwest 88 Avenue, Tamarac. The purpose of the meeting is to award a bid for garbage and trash collection and disposal for residential curbside and condominium dumpsters by Temp. Reso. #3286. The Council may consider and act upon such other business as may come before it. The public is invited to attend. Carol A. Evans Assistant City Clerk Pursuant to Section 286.0105, Florida -tatut s If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the city Council with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. "An Equal Opportunity Employer" CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MELTING SLPTEMBER 19, 1984 Tape 1 LALL_.T?_,D1U F,B: Mayor Kravitz called the meeting to order on Wednesday, September 19, 1984, at 10:00 A.M. in the Council Chambers. Mayor Philip B. Kravitz Vice Mayor Sydney M. Stein Councilman Jack Stelzer Councilman Raymond J. Munitz Councilman John J. Dunne AL SD__PM: Elly F. Johnson, City Manager Jon M. Henning, City Attorney Patricia Marcurio, Secretary Mayor Kravitz read the call of the meeting into the record stating that the purpose of the meeting was to award a bid for garbage and trash collection and disposal for residential curbside and condominium dumpsters by BYNOPS S 4 A_QT QN: APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. R-84-, 5' PASSED. as amended. Mr. Henning read em_.__Reo,_...#_j2$SZ by title. Mr. Henning said the City had a contract with Browning Ferris for garbage collection since 1979 which expires 10/l/84. He said during the last several weeks the City has been coordin- ating a bid proposal to go to bid for a contract when the pre- sent contract expires. He said they took as source documents the contract which the City had with BFI and the forms used for all bids in the City. Mr. Henning said with efforts from his office, City Manager's office, Finance and Purchasing, they developed lengthy bid specifications to send to the prospective bidders. He said this was done and the bid was scheduled for opening and did open at 2:00 P.M. on Wednesday, September 12. He said a few weeks before the bid opening, there was a meeting of pros- pective bidders at which time they discussed any questions which may have been raised by the contract. He said an adden- dum was issued about a week before the bid opening, which was acknowledged by all the bidders, clarifying the questions that arose. Mr. Henning said there was a request for additional lead time to go on line with the service and they negotiated an extension of 60 days with BFI so that the present contract will expire on 12/1/84 instead of 10/1/84. He said the bid would begin on 12/1/84 of this year and extend until the end of September either 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 years from now. He said the bids came in and there was an analysis done by the Finance Department and they, with the concurrence of the City Manager, are recommending a 3-year contract with the lowest bidder. He said Council has the option of issuing a contract for those amounts of time with virtually any of the bidders if the bid complies. He said there is one contract that will be issued for curbside, single family service and a second contract issued for the dumpster service which is for condominium, multi --family service. He said it is conceivable that these services could go to separate companies or to the same company. 1 9/l9/84 /pm Mr. Henning said he had telephone conversations with attorneys on behalf of. the 3 lowest bidders, waste Management, All Ser- vice Refuse and BFI. He said he has received written corres- pondence from Bob Huebner on behalf of BFI stating objections to the other 2 lowest bidders. Mr. Henning said the biggest discussion has been concerning the bid bond which was furnished by Waste Management in the form of a certified check in the amount of $55,000. He said some of the bidders have objected to the size of that bid bond if the Council wishes to entertain a contract in excess of 1 year. He said the bid bond is 5% and they are suggesting that they would be held to services for a $1,100,000.00 contract, either for one year for both services or up to a 5-year contract for dumpsters only. Mr. Henning referred to Page 5 of the Bid Package, Paragraph 21, which stated under "Reservations for Rejection and Award" that "the City of Tamarac reserves, and by submitting a bid, the bidder acknowledges, the right to accept or reject any or all bids or parts of bids, to waive irregularities and techni- calities and to request rebids on the required materials. The City also reserves the right to waive minor variations to specifications. Interpretation of minor variations will be mace by applicable City department personnel. In the event of legal action by either party, the contract shall be bound by t hEY laws of the State of Florida". Mr. Henning said there has been much discussion about this bid bond, however, this is a 3-week bond and is not the performance bond. He said whatever contract the Council decides to author- ize, a full performance bond would be required before the contract would be acceptable. V/M Stein said the objection has been raised that the cost of securing a $226,000 bond is considerably more than a $55,000 bond, therefore, the successful bidder had an undue advantage. Mr. Henning said this has been the argument that: has been made and he questioned whether it is "considerably" more since it is for an approximate 3-week period, they are talking about con- tracts of approximately one million dollars per year and whether or not there was any, material advantage to the lowest bidder because of the bid bond. He said considering whether or not that is a wai.vable defect and considering the spread in the prices between the first and second bidder, he feels the City is in a defensible position if it wishes to go with the lowest bidder. V/M Stein asked why the City is not considering a 5-year con- tract and Steve Woad, Finance Director, said they examined the proposal for every year. He said the difference from a finan- cial standpoint is that the City would pay a. premium in the early years to get that rate in the fifth year. He said they fee]. that on the low bidders' bids for each of the years, that premium amounts to $100,000 per year additional to select that 5-year number. He s.cai..c they f.el.t selecting a 3-year number requires a premium of $50,000 per year and with the budget constraints, that would be more in line at this point. He said there was also discussion as to what will happen with the re- source recovery program and they do not recommend the 5-year contract. V/M Stein said he questioned the bidders during the Workshop Meeting on this subject and they all agreed that it would be more economical if they received a total contract of commercial and residential. He asked if the City were to award a 3-year contract would it be possible to give an exclusive contract to the residential hauler. He asked how the City could expedite that. Mr. Wood said one of the providers cautioned the City that this could create many legal problems for the City by eliminating the competition in the City to the other haulers. 2 9/19/84 /pm Mr. Henning said there may be advantages to having a City-wide exclusive contract, however, one of the advantages of having an open marketplace to the extent that the City has non-exclusive franchises with the half dozen or so providers for commercial garbage collection is that the City allows the competitive marketplace to prevent the commercial carriers from subsidizing the residential service. He said, for example, if the City had an overall contract it is possible that the residential cost would be very low and operate at a loss and the commercial carrier would not only be paying for his own service, but would help to subsidize the service of the residents. He said as far as this contract is concerned, by having an open marketplace for the commercial business, the City is insuring the busiress people that they are not paying a subsidy to help fund the cost to the residents. He said perhaps this could be addressed in the future. Mr. Henning said the only pertinence of this discussion is to help Council determine how long a contract they, would want. C/M Dunne said he would assume there would be less residential pickups in the summer and Mr. Henning said the condominiums may have an additional pickup to handle that. Mayor Kravitz opened the meeting to the public. Robert Huebner, representative of BFI, said they delivered a letter to the City of their formal protest since it was clear, in regard to the requirement of the bid bond, that it be for the full amount of the contract. He said the bid requirements stated that each bidder "shall" submit the 5% amount and he requested that if the City is going to award the contract to Waste Management, it be done for only 1 year or 5 years on the non --residential. He said they feel all bidders should abide by the same rules. C/M Stelzer said there is no additional cost to BFI in any way and would not have changed the figures in the bid if they too had submitted a $55,000 bond. Mr. Henning said if BFI is suggesting that there was an unfair advantage monetarily be- cause of the premiums involved, this should be clarified on the record today. Mr. Huebner said he would check with his client. C/M Munitz asked if the fact that All Service had not bid on 2 of the time periods, would void the entire bid? Mr. Henning said they did not submit a bid on years 3 and 4, however, he is not suggesting that their bid be disregarded because of that. V/M Stein said the question of whether the company that is the lower bidder had the ability to secure a $225,000 bond is pertinent. Mr. Henning said before the execution of the con- tract, the performance bond for the full period stipulated would be required. He said there is no way a performance bond would be accepted unless it were for the full amount of time. C/M Stelzer said the money sent in with the bid is strictly earnest money and the amount is not important since this is returned as soon as a contract is negotiated. Mr. Huebner said the inequity is that if they wanted to walk away from their bid it would have cost them $225,000, however, if Waste Management walked away from their bid it would only have cost them $55,000. Mr. Henning said for the record, that in speaking with Mr. Carter of All Service Refuse after the bids were opened, he asked Mr. Carter if he wished that the City demand that Waste Management provide the $225,000. He said Mr. Carter said this would be negotiating with a bidder and he did not approve of: that, therefore, Mr. Henning did not pursue this further. 9 9/19/84 /prr' Tony Spadaccia, representative of Industrial Waste Services, said he would like to know how the premium service, which was a required cost item in specification of this bid, was consider- ed. He said Industrial Waste Service had premium service at $1.59 per cubic yard dumped and Waste Management had proposed premium service at $2.00 per unit. He said the dollar yardage charge compared to a, per unit charge would make their proposal considerably less overall. He said as an example, for the standard set of twice a week for every 50 units, their price is $2.79 per unit and Waste Management has $2.13 per unit. He said should those 50 units require extra service, their added cost for those 50 units would be $2.00 per unit or $100.00. He said Industrial Waste's costs at $1.59 per cubic yard would relate to $27.35 for those same 50 units. He said he would have to assume that anything other than a 4 cubic yard container twice a week is premium service. He said their plan would charge for the exact extra amount of service rather than a flat fee. He said he would like to know how the premium of Waste Management was decided on, how it related to Council's decision, and why Industrial Waste was not considered as the number two bidder. Tape 2 Mr. Henning asked Mr. Spadaccia if he knew how many condominiums have the third day pickup and Mr. Spadaccia said he does not know but there are a considerable amount that do. Mr. Henning said this was discussed by staff and there were figures for the difference in the savings to the City vs. the savings to the home or condominium owner. He said the bid of Industrial Waste on a 3-year contract for condo dumpster is $2.79 per unit as cost to the City and Waste Management's bid is $2.13 per unit. He said there is a difference of $.66 per unit per month which totals an annual cost of $47,520 to the City. He said this would be an added expense to the City of approximately $145,000 over a 3-year contract. V/M Stein said the City is bidding a contract for a, twice -a - week pickup for the residents and this is part of the ad val- orem tax. He said everyone in the City receives the same service and anything else requested by the residents should not be a consideration in the bid. He said otherwise this would penalize the other residents who do not receive a third day pickup. Mr. Henning said since the City is giving an exclusive contract, there is a provision in the contract so that the amount for a third day pickup cannot be raised to an extra- ordinary amount over the term. of the contract. Mr. Spadaccia said that since the City made the premium service a part of the bid specifications, it should not be disregarded. He said he would like Council to consider awarding the condominium dis- posal bid to Industrial Waste Services and the residential properties to the apparent low bidder. Shirley Blumfield, resident, asked how the residents will be protected against poor service once the contract has been awarded. Mr. Henning said there is a performance bond that protects the City against this problem. Emerson Allsworth, attorney for Waste Management, said the bond they submitted to the City was a cash bond. He said they had the alternative of an insurance company bond or a cash certi- fied check and they chose the cash bond. He said he computed the differential on the interest between $55,000 and $210,000 for three weeks at 12%, the difference would be approximately $900. He said they interpreted the contract to require only the amount of the bond they submitted. 4 9/19/84 /pm Mr. Allsworth said it would have been no problem for them to have submitted a bid bond in any amount since they have the financial. resources. He said this would not give an advantage to any company since any company that was not able to put up the bid bond would not be able to furnish the performance bond. Mr. Allsworth said the bid from Waste Management represents a substantial savings and they will give the City excellent service. He said the question of the bid bond is moot after today anyway and the performance bond is the important factor. He urged Council to consider a. 5-year contract to avoid higher rates later. A.J. Ryan, attorney representing All Service Refuse Co., said they submitted a bid and their exposure on the bid bond was in the amount of $262,000. He said the longer the term of the contract, the greater the cost would be to the City and he suggested the City only award Waste Management a one year contract. He said they were the low bidder on the curbside but not on the condominiums. Mr. Henning asked Mr. Huebner if he wanted to address the Council on any figures concerning premiums and Mr. Huebner said they have no further comments. V/M Stein said for the record that his MOTION will be for a 3- year contract and All Service Refuse did not bid on a 3 year contract. He MOVED APPROVAL of inserting inserting in Section 1, "the bid of Waste Management In.c. of Florida" and the sum of 0$4.89 per unit" for a "three (3)" year contract. He said inserting in Section 2, "the bid of Waste Management Inc. of Florida" and the sum of "$2.13 per unit" for a "three (3)" year contract. SECONDED by C/M Dunne. C/M Munitz asked if this was the recommendation of the Finance Director and the City Manager and V/M Stein said that is correct. YS?—T- : ALL- YOTED AY E V/M Stein said Mayor Kravitz copied Council with a memo requesting Council members suggest which liaisons they would like to have. He said he would appreciate if Mayor Kravitz would act on this as soan as possible. Mayor Kravitz said he did not receive any communication except from V/M Stein and he requested all other members of Council forward their communica- tions to him as soon as possible. The meeting was adjourned at 1.1:15 A.M. MAYOR ATTEST: ASSISTANT CITY CLERK This public document was promulgated at a cost of $79.60 or $2.21 per copy to inform the general public and public officers and employees about recent opinions and considerations by the Council of the City of Tamarac. CITY OF TAMALA A ., APPR VED AT MEETING OF oZ City Clerk 5 9/19/84 /pmj